Credibility crisis

Travelling for work is not taxing for Justice K T Thomas even at the age of 77 but on March 3, he felt it is not worth to embark on a 3,000 km journey from his hometown in Kerala’s Kottayam and waste several days in Delhi at government expense.

. In 377 words, the former Supreme Court judge summed up why he felt so and told V Narayanasamy, Minister of State in Prime Minister’s Office, that he was withdrawing his consent to head the Lokpal Search Committee, which would recommend names to the Prime Minister-headed Selection panel for final appointment of the ombudsman. Thomas changed his mind within days following the decision of eminent jurist Fali S Nariman not to be on the panel. The 85-year-old senior advocate on February 27 chose not to be part of the panel citing that the government restricted the committee’s mandate and it would result in the “most competent, the most independent and the most courageous” getting overlooked. The government wanted the search panel of eight members to restrict their search to the names provided by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and could not consider any names on its own. The two men, with a combined experience of 119 years in law, did not find this a prudent exercise and rocked the boat. They put a spanner in UPA government’s plans to appoint a chairperson and members for the anti-corruption ombudsman ‘Lokpal’ before its term ends in May.

Controversies, delays and hiccups are not new for the proposed Lokpal, which became a reality after 51 years when then independent MP L M Singhvi, father of Congress spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi, first mooted it. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had asked the senior Singhvi in jest, "to what zoo does this animal belong", when he introduced the Scandinavian concept of ombudsman.

Jaitley’s view

After being signed into law on this New Year following nine aborted attempts in Parliament in 46 years, Lokpal appeared so near but the government faced opposition within a fortnight when it sought applications for being members in the ombudsman. Senior BJP leader Arun Jaitley shot off a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh saying the DoPT cannot invite applications, as it was the prerogative of the Selection Committee to lay down the rules and procedures. Jaitley was of the view that the move was against the spirit of the Lokpal Act. “The very idea of retiring or sitting judges of the highest court having to move applications for a post-retirement assignment is repugnant to the dignity of the office that they have held. Retired judges who lobby with the establishment with their CVs compromise their self-respect and dignity. A job-seeking judge may not be the best person to be appointed a member of the Lokpal,” he wrote to the prime minister. Singh dismissed the criticism and said the advertisement was brought out to ensure that the ombudsman was established at the earliest. Clearly, it was not the end but only the beginning of another round of confrontation.

The second opportunity came soon at the time of selecting the fifth member, an eminent citizen, for the Selection Committee, the four others being Prime Minister, Lok Sabha Speaker, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha and Chief Justice of India or his representative, who were to select the fifth member. Leader of Opposition Sushma Swaraj objected senior lawyer P P Rao’s name for the fifth position in the panel claiming that he was a “Congress loyalist”. She suggested several names like Nariman and Soli Sorabjee. She was said to be even agreeable to names like former Chief Justice M N Venkatachaliah and senior lawyer K K Venugopal. But Singh was adamant that only Rao could be considered and got the stamp on his appointment. BJP cried foul with Jaitley accusing Singh of damaging the institution of Lokpal even prior to its appointment.

Nariman salvo

With the fifth member of its choice in and brushing aside opposition to the process, the government moved ahead to constitute a search panel following a recommendation from the Selection Committee and sent letters to eight members on February 21. In between, the government also finalised rules and regulations for the implementation of the Lokpal Act. Six days later, Nariman served the first volley saying the procedure was flawed. The government has said that the Search Committee has to confine themselves to the list provided by it and that the panel cannot alter it by adding any name. In effect, it meant that the search panel had to just prune the list provided by DoPT and forward the same to the Selection Committee. This seriously crippled the mandate of the search panel.

Finding out that the panel has nothing much to do, Thomas wrote to Narayanasamy for the second time in a week’s time, “I wonder why there should be a Search Committee at all, much less, the arduous work to be undertaken by the members of such a Committee when the Selection Committee itself can decide on who should be the members of Lokpal.”

The government move was met with opposition from several quarters, including the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which in its earlier avatar during Anna Hazare agitation had reignited the demand for Lokpal. The AAP said the entire issue proved beyond doubt that the Congress-led UPA government was trying to appoint individuals convenient to it in a desperate bid to render the Lokpal a weak and ineffective institution. Congress, however, sought to downplay it.

What Swaraj or Jaitley could not do through a series of letters and interventions, Thomas and Nariman managed in just 557 words in two letters. They put a huge question mark on the manner in which the government was moving ahead with the appointment of members of the Lokpal. The Act may serve a noble cause but the government at least appears half-hearted in realising the goals and in between twisting the arms. After this, it would be, in all probability, left to the new government to work out the formalities of setting up the first Lokpal of the country.

Credibility crisis

Follow us on :

Follow Us